The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for harmonious construction of procedural provisions, the legislative intent behind procedural amendments, and the strict adherence to procedural requirements based on the appealability of the ultimate orders.

B.S. Chauhan, J.-The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 19-8-2002, by which the incomplete examination-in-chief of a witness had been allowed to be completed by filing an affidavit.

2. Thefacts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that in the suit No. 279/ 1993, Deoji Mal vs. Laxman Das, the examination-in-chief of PW 8 Murli was recorded but could not be completed for paucity of time on 16-3-2002. When he again appeared on 17-4-2002, some questions were asked in examination-in-chief , but there had been dispute as to whether such questions can be asked and the same could not be concluded. Same-position remained on 16-5-2002, 20-5-2002, 1-6-2002 and 22-7-2002 and the remaining examination-in-chief was filed in the form of an affidavit by the plaintiff-respondent. The petitioner-defendant sought time to argue on the acceptability of an affidavit for the purpose of concluding the examination-in-chief and ultimately the case was adjourned time and again as is evident from the order-sheets dated 8-7-2002, 6-8-2002 and 17-8-2002. The impugned order was passed on 19-8-2002 rejecting the objection of the petitioner-defendant and accepting the affidavit. Hence, this revision.

.3. Mr. Panwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant has submitted that as the original suit relates to eviction of the tenant under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, whatever the judgment and decree to be passed by the learned trial Court shall be appealable and the

.affidavit, as provided under Order 18, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (for short, “the Act, 1999”) cannot be accepted and the procedure prescribed under Order 18, Rule 5 has to be followed, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Soni, learned Counsel for non-petitioner/plaintiff has submitted that as the Order 18, Rule 4 has been inserted by the Amendment Act in order to meet the menace of delay, the impugned order does not require any interference.

5. I haveconsidered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

.6. Order 18, Rule 4 was inserted by the New Act which came into force w.e.f 1-7-2002. It provides for recording the examination-in-chief , in every case, of a witness on affidavit and further the cross-examination and re-examination of the witness either by the Court or by a Commissioner appointed by it. Order 18, Rule 5 remains unamended as it was introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act. 1976, which came into force w.e.f 1-2-1977 providing that in the cases in which the order to be passed by the Court is appealable, the evidence is to be recorded by the Court itself in writing. Order 18, Rule 13 reads as under:--

.“Memorandum of evidence in unappealable cases--In cases in which an appeal is not allowed, it shall not be necessary to take down or dictate or record the evidence of the witnesses at length; but the Judge, as the examination of which witness proceeds, shall make in writing, the dictate directly on the typewriter, or cause to be mechanically recorded, a memorandum of the substance of what the witness deposes, and such memorandum shall be signed by the Judge or otherwise authenticated, and shall form part of the record.”

7. Thus, if all the provisions are read together, it appears that the legislative intent should have been that if the ultimate orders to be passed by the Court are not appealable, the evidence or examination-in-chief may be taken on affidavit or by recording substance thereof by the Court. So far as the savings clause of the New Code. 1999 or the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 are concerned, there is nothing in respect of the provisions of the cases which may be governed by the provisions of Order 18 Rule 4. This being Procedural Law, it will be operative prospectively from the date of enforcement of the provisions, i.e.